Is a soldiers life more important than a civilians?

[Skeptical Greg]

It just occurred to me the other poll with this title is flawed..

It asks a question, then presents two related, but subjective choices..

This is my attempt to remedy that..


I vote ' NO '....

[Jocko]

If you mean an American or British soldier's life weighed against the life of an Iraqi civilian, then my answer is the soldier.

That's not to say a soldier's life is worth more than a civilians, but rather that an American or coalition life is worth more than an Iraqi's. I'm sure the Iraqis would answer that question differently, but that's because I'm an American and he's an Iraqi.

At least you can tell who you're really dealing with when you're talking about a soldier.

But I get the feeling that there is some specific context lurking behind this broad question that invites - nay, demands - gross generalizations. What is it?

[Kodiak]

On the battlefield, a soldier's life is immeasurably more important than a civilians...

[DrBenway]

Just before a plane takes off, the flight crew remind passengers of a potential situation: in an emergency, the cabin pressure may fall. Oxygen masks will drop from the ceiling, so people can breath.

If you're an adult traveling with a young child, should you put the mask on the child first and then yourself, or the mask on yourself first and then the child? Whose life is "more important" in that setting?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by DrBenway

If you're an adult traveling with a young child, should you put the mask on the child first and then yourself, or the mask on yourself first and then the child? Whose life is "more important" in that setting?

Wise, as always, Dr.Benway...

It's better not to compare oranges with apples... You will never get a valid result.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by DrBenway
Just before a plane takes off, the flight crew remind passengers of a potential situation: in an emergency, the cabin pressure may fall. Oxygen masks will drop from the ceiling, so people can breath.

If you're an adult traveling with a young child, should you put the mask on the child first and then yourself, or the mask on yourself first and then the child? Whose life is "more important" in that setting?

I take it this is an attempt at a ' moral dilemma '....

And I would say the few seconds it would take to do either is of little consequence...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The few people who have chosen to respond to my version of this poll, seemed to have missed my point.

AUP's poll had you choosing between a civillian or a soldier with regard to the value of their life.


I gave you the chance to answer 'yes' or 'no' to the question:

Is a soldiers life more important than a civilians?


Answering ' NO ', does not equate to " The civilians life is more important. ;)

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Diogenes

I take it this is an attempt at a ' moral dilemma '....

And I would say the few seconds it would take to do either is of little consequence...

How long it takes to put the mask on might depend on how cooperative the kid was at that moment.

The specific instructions given by the airlines: the adult puts the mask on himself first, then puts the mask on the kid.

Why? Because the child will surely die if the adult falls unconscious first. However, if the child falls unconscious first, an able adult can try to revive him.

Another analogy: in a civil emergency, who is more "important," the doctor or the patient? Most would argue the doctor. One doctor can save many patients.

Likewise, the soldiers in southern Iraq are now the law and order in the region. Remove them, and a bloodbath will follow. Each soldier there is quite likely saving hundreds of lives.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by DrBenway


How long it takes to put the mask on might depend on how cooperative the kid was at that moment.

The specific instructions given by the airlines: the adult puts the mask on himself first, then puts the mask on the kid.

Why? Because the child will surely die if the adult falls unconscious first. However, if the child falls unconscious first, an able adult can try to revive him.

Another analogy: in a civil emergency, who is more "important," the doctor or the patient? Most would argue the doctor. One doctor can save many patients.

Likewise, the soldiers in southern Iraq are now the law and order in the region. Remove them, and a bloodbath will follow. Each soldier there is quite likely saving hundreds of lives.


I didn't realize we were talking about the logical procedure, since your question was:

"Whose life is "more important" in that setting? "

Of course, now I understand I am quibling over semantics, to suggest that the form of the question, based on your answer, should have been:

' What order of putting on the masks, would best serve both parties?';)

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I didn't realize we were talking about the logical procedure

The rules of engagement between soldiers and civilians are also a set of logical procedures. It's a bit silly to extrapolate from these procedures some philosophical position regarding whose life is more important.

But that's what AUP tried to do in his other thread.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by DrBenway


The rules of engagement between soldiers and civilians are also a set of logical procedures. It's a bit silly to extrapolate from these procedures some philosophical position regarding whose life is more important.

But that's what AUP tried to do in his other thread.

My point exactly....:cool:

[Nasarius]

I don't know about "importance", but the death of a civilian is more upsetting to me (as compared to a non-drafted soldier), because they had absolutely no choice in being thrust into a war zone. When you sign up to be a soldier, you know damn well there's a possibility that you'll be risking your life, and you make that choice freely.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Nasarius
I don't know about "importance", but the death of a civilian is more upsetting to me (as compared to a non-drafted soldier), because they had absolutely no choice in being thrust into a war zone. When you sign up to be a soldier, you know damn well there's a possibility that you'll be risking your life, and you make that choice freely.

Sounds like a new poll...

What is more upsetting to you?:


1. The death of a non-drafted soldier.
2. The death of a civilian.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Diogenes
It just occurred to me the other poll with this title is flawed..

It asks a question, then presents two related, but subjective choices..

This is my attempt to remedy that..


I vote ' NO '....

Could you add a little more content to your question the only way a civilian would have to be killed over a solders that they where some how threatening the solders then the answer would be yes they do have a right to defend them self’s.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Baker


Could you add a little more content to your question the only way a civilian would have to be killed over a solders that they where some how threatening the solders then the answer would be yes they do have a right to defend them self’s.


You might want to add more content to my question and start your own poll..

There are an infinite number of scenario's in which either or both might die..
However I suggest the importance of one human life over another is highly subjective,
relative to your proximity to the life in question.. ( .... including your own)


I explained my position here:

I gave you the chance to answer 'yes' or 'no' to the question:

Is a soldiers life more important than a civilians?

Answering ' NO ', does not equate to " The civilians life is more important..

Originally posted by Diogenes



I gave you the chance to answer 'yes' or 'no' to the question:

Is a soldiers life more important than a civilians?


Answering ' NO ', does not equate to " The civilians life is more important. ;)


I answer NO, because the soldiers are the assasins of inoccent people.

The civilian life is always most important.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Diogenes



You might want to add more content to my question and start your own poll..

There are an infinite number of scenario's in which either or both might die..
However I suggest the importance of one human life over another is highly subjective,
relative to your proximity to the life in question.. ( .... including your own)


I explained my position here:



The question suggests that they are taking no interest in civilian lives.
In addition, it’s one human life over another why is a US soldiers less importation then another human.